Okay, here is the point you seem not to understand. The trial is about whether or not Casey murdered Caylee. The Prosecution MUST prove that Casey murdered Caylee. The prosecution has spent 19 days trying to prove that Casey murdered Caylee. From everything I have seen, they have failed horribly. And if they failed, then she walks.
The Prosecution must prove that Caylee was murdered by Casey. The defense need only raise doubt in the minds of the jury that it was Casey that murdered Caylee which since there is no direct evidence linking Casey to the crime, it seems to me that they do not need to try very hard to achieve.
In opening statements the defense stated that Caylee drowned in the pool. The prosecution has proven that Caylee was murdered, but they have not proven that it was Casey that did it and the defense does not need to prove who killed her. They only need to raise reasonable doubt that it was Casey who did it.
That was why OJ walked. His defense team did not try to prove who murdered Nicole and Ron only raise doubts that it was OJ.
Oh, and they profess to know that she died in the pool. None of that has yet been introduced into evidence. The defense doesn't even need to mention the pool in their arguments if they don't want to.
The odor in the car? She forgot hamburger in her trunk for several days. It spoiled and the car still reeks.
The sticker and duct tape? No proof that it was Casey that put it on Caylee's mouth and suffocated her.
The tatoos? Makes the prosecution appear desperate.
The hair proved nothing.
What evidence besides "she's a pathological liar" do you point to that says... Casey Anthony killed her daughter and no one else possibly could have done it?
One of the red flags I feel is that Caylee was missing for so long. That leads me to suspicion of Casey, but, I have not heard anything that proves that it means that she murdered her daughter.
And for the record, I'm not saying you are wrong that she will be convicted. Only that from what I have heard, the prosecution has failed miserably. We can only wait to hear what the jury has to say about that.
Immie
Those are all the points I've made all along, but haven't posted here for several days, so I'm just now getting caught up. We don't know (yet) what Casey's reasoning might have been for lying for 31 days, but that should not have any bearing on her guilt unless there is solid proof that she was indeed riding all around town with her child's dead body in the trunk. Which I highly suspect is totally not true. She was covering up the truth as long as she could get away with it, but we don't know why.
I keep returning to a question even the Judge asked the prosecution at one point:
"If Casey just wanted to be rid of the child so she could go out and party, why wouldn't she have just left Caylee with the grandparents?" (Implying why she would have KILLED HER instead?) The grandparents loved the child and would have happily raised her and let Casey do her own thing.
And I will answer the same as I did before when this very question was brought up.
Casey was not close to her parents, and whether people choose to believe it or not, young people, meaning George and Cindy's daughter Casey, can be a total bitches!
Maybe she did want rid of her daughter but at the same time, she didn't want her parents to have her either. You'd be surprised what people will do for spite. Casey may have thought, nobody will get Caylee ever. As I recall from earlier on, Casey didn't even want the child, she was going to give the baby away, but Cindy wouldn't hear of it.
So maybe Casey resented her Mother in some way for that, and she got back at her...just a theory, a thought.